A Tower Hamlets councillor last week claimed that there has been a surge in “illegal” and “increasingly dangerous” cycling through Greenwich foot tunnel, amid calls for any measures which would allow cyclists to ride in the tunnel – which forms part of National Cycle Route 1 – to be subject to a “rigorous” health and safety assessment.

Another member of the council also called for barriers to be installed along the path to stop cyclists “zooming across from one end of the tunnel to the other”.

However, Green Party councillor Nathalie Bienfait argued that the discussion only served to give “unhelpful airtime to the false narrative that cyclists are fundamentally irresponsible and lawless”.

Over the past few decades, with the development of the financial district centred on Canary Wharf, London’s north-south Greenwich tunnel has become a key commuting link for people who work there but live south of the Thames, given the lack of other convenient crossings in the area.

But despite forming part of National Cycle Route 1, linking Dover and the Scottish Highlands, cyclists are currently only allowed to walk their bikes through the tunnel (since 2014, bikes have been permitted on Docklands Light Railway trains, but only at off-peak times).

In 2017, Labour-controlled Greenwich Council, which is responsible for maintaining the tunnel, sanctioned plans to allow cyclists to ride through it at certain times, a proposal which requires approval from its joint owner Tower Hamlets Council, where the Aspire Party, which last year ripped out a school street in the borough, has the majority.

Despite electronic signs being tested in the tunnels, indicating when cyclists can use them, the scheme has faced opposition from Tower Hamlets Council, with Conservative councillor Peter Golds arguing at the time of the initial proposal that the Edwardian tunnel “was never designed for cycling”.

A user group for the tunnel was disbanded two years ago, as members expressed their frustration at the lack of progress in resolving the cycling issue, as well as problems with the tunnel’s lifts, which were installed in 2010 during a much-criticised refurbishment.

The proposals once again came under the microscope in a meeting of Tower Hamlets Council last week, as Tory councillor Golds claimed that there was “huge popular support” in the area for “rigorous” health and safety checks to be implemented before any ban on cycling in Greenwich foot tunnel is lifted, the News Shopper reports (link is external).

“The Greenwich Foot Tunnel is a major issue and major problem,” Gold told the council. “The issue here is the growth of illegal cycling in the foot tunnel which is increasingly dangerous.

“We constantly get issues of families going through the foot tunnel and suddenly finding people coming towards them, shooting through at speed on bicycles, frequently blowing whistles to expect people to get out of the way.”

Golds also singled out the “irritating little Deliveroo pop-pop-pop bikes shooting through the tunnel and trying to shoot people out of the way”.

“It’s not acceptable,” he said.

Labour’s Abdal Ullah echoed the Conservative councillor’s point, and claimed that, thanks to cyclists, the tunnel was “difficult and dangerous” for those with children.

“Some think they’re not breaking the law by only putting their foot on one pedal and zooming through. They think they’re being clever. It is still breaking the law,” he said.

Ullah then called for barriers to be put in place inside the tunnel to prevent “dangerous” cycling.

“If we put barriers along our path, hopefully Greenwich will follow suit in putting up barriers that would stop people zooming across from one end of the tunnel to the other,” he said. “So I would really urge that we, as a council, write to the relevant people in Greenwich and say, look, meet us halfway.

“It’s not an attack on cyclists,” said the councillor, whose father sustained fatal injuries (link is external) when he was hit by a competitor at the London Triathlon in 2009, with organisers IMG Events subsequently fined £300,000 for health and safety breaches.

“Although one killed my father, I have no grudges against cyclists. But it is dangerous, especially now with more and more people wearing headphones that you can’t hear the noise. You can’t hear the bell.”

Another Labour councillor, Mufadeen Bustin, said that while views in her Island Gardens ward were split on allowing cyclists in the tunnel, she believes that the “joy” of using the tunnels is “taken away when a cyclist whizzes past, almost knocking you over”.

However, Green Party councillor Nathalie Bienfait argued that Golds’ motion and the subsequent discussion gave “unhelpful airtime to the false narrative that cyclists are fundamentally irresponsible and lawless”.

She added: ““There is no safe north-south route for cyclists or pedestrians east of Tower Bridge. The Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels are used daily by hundreds of commuters who are, for the most part, respectful of the safety of pedestrians.

“The idea that cyclists are fundamentally unsafe for pedestrians is simply untrue and has to be challenged.

“Enforcement of byelaws prohibiting cycling in the tunnel is definitely important, but the protection of a quick and convenient route is something that I would like to support.”
Despite Bienfait’s plea, Kabir Ahmed, a member of Lutfur Rahman’s Aspire party and Tower Hamlets’ cabinet member for regeneration, dismissed the idea that by criticising “dangerous” cyclists in the Greenwich foot tunnel, the council was attacking everyone who rides bikes.

“I think this is a serious issue,” he said. “I’m quite surprised how a motion regarding dangerous cyclists zooming across pedestrianised areas suddenly becomes an attack on all cyclists. That’s not the case.

“If cycles need to be taken, they can walk with the cycles in their hand and carry it along just like all the other pedestrians.

“Now for me, it feels like the shoe is on the other foot because so many times we’ve had support regarding LTNs and blaming all drivers for dangerous driving and bad drivers. And now the shoe is on the other foot. We’re talking about dangerous cyclists running people over.”

Following the discussion, Tower Hamlets’ councillors voted to pass Golds’ motion calling for health and safety checks in the tunnel.

https://road.cc/content/news/councillor-calls-anti-bike-barriers-foot-tunnel-298871

On 25/01/2023 07:01 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> A Tower Hamlets councillor last week claimed that there has been a surge in “illegal” and “increasingly dangerous” fairy-cycling through Greenwich foot tunnel, amid calls for any measures which would allow fairy-cyclists to ride in the tunnel – which forms part of National Cycle Route 1 – to be subject to a “rigorous” health and safety assessment.
>
> Another member of the council also called for barriers to be installed along the path to stop fairy-cyclists “zooming across from one end of the tunnel to the other”.

So you see... not all members of Tower Hamlets Council are that bad.
Some of them are very sensible, as their calls for pedestrian safety
(above) testify.

But obviously, the council does have some bad apples, as the next line
proves.

> However, Green Party councillor Nathalie Bienfait argued that the discussion only served to give “unhelpful airtime to the false narrative that fairy-cyclists are fundamentally irresponsible and lawless”.

But that is CORRECT!

Fairy-cyclists ARE fundamentally irresponsible and lawless!
>
> Over the past few decades, with the development of the financial district centred on Canary Wharf, London’s north-south Greenwich tunnel has become a key commuting link for people who work there but live south of the Thames, given the lack of other convenient crossings in the area.
>
> But despite forming part of National Fairy-Cycle Route 1, linking Dover and the Scottish Highlands, fairy-cyclists are currently only allowed to walk their fairy-bikes through the tunnel (since 2014, fairy-bikes have been permitted on Docklands Light Railway trains, but only at off-peak times).
>
> In 2017, Labour-controlled Greenwich Council, which is responsible for maintaining the tunnel, sanctioned plans to allow fairy-cyclists to ride through it at certain times, a proposal which requires approval from its joint owner Tower Hamlets Council, where the Aspire Party, which last year ripped out a school street in the borough, has the majority.
>
> Despite electronic signs being tested in the tunnels, indicating when fairy-cyclists can use them,

Hahahahahahahaha!

The idea that fairy-cyclists have the slightest concept of obeying rules
or considering other road-users is HILARIOUS! :-)

> the scheme has faced opposition from Tower Hamlets Council, with Conservative councillor Peter Golds arguing at the time of the initial proposal that the Edwardian tunnel “was never designed for fairy-cycling”.

And he is 100% correct, of course.
>
> A user group for the tunnel was disbanded two years ago, as members expressed their frustration at the lack of progress in resolving the fairy-cycling issue, as well as problems with the tunnel’s lifts, which were installed in 2010 during a much-criticised refurbishment.

We remember it being much-discussed here at the time.
>
> The proposals once again came under the microscope in a meeting of Tower Hamlets Council last week, as Tory councillor Golds claimed that there was “huge popular support” in the area for “rigorous” health and safety checks to be implemented before any ban on fairy-cycling in Greenwich foot tunnel is lifted, the News Shopper reports (link is external).
>
> “The Greenwich ***Foot*** Tunnel is a major issue and major problem,” Gold told the council. “The issue here is the growth of illegal fairy-cycling in the foot tunnel which is increasingly dangerous.

Sounds absolutely correct. Doesn't he?
>
> “We constantly get issues of families going through the foot tunnel and suddenly finding people coming towards them, shooting through at speed on fairy-bicycles, frequently blowing whistles to expect people to get out of the way.”...

....and no doubt issuing a few bellowed obscenities, as is the wont of
typical fairycyclists.

> Golds also singled out the “irritating little Deliveroo pop-pop-popfairy- bikes shooting through the tunnel and trying to shoot people out of the way”.
>
> “It’s not acceptable,” he said.
>
> Labour’s Abdal Ullah echoed the Conservative councillor’s point, and claimed that, thanks to fairy-cyclists, the tunnel was “difficult and dangerous” for those with children.
>
> “Some think they’re not breaking the law by only putting their foot on one pedal and zooming through. They think they’re being clever. It is still breaking the law,” he said.
>
> Ullah then called for barriers to be put in place inside the tunnel to prevent “dangerous” fairy-cycling.

Most encouraging. Wouldn't it be good if there could be more of this
cross-party support for pedestrian safety in the Greenwich ***Foot***
Tunnel, replicated elsewhere?

> “If we put barriers along our path, hopefully Greenwich will follow suit in putting up barriers that would stop people zooming across from one end of the tunnel to the other,” he said. “So I would really urge that we, as a council, write to the relevant people in Greenwich and say, look, meet us halfway.
>
> “It’s not an attack on fairy-cyclists,” said the councillor, whose father sustained fatal injuries (link is external) when he was hit by a competitor at the London Triathlon in 2009, with organisers IMG Events subsequently fined £300,000 for health and safety breaches.
>
> “Although one killed my father, I have no grudges against fairy-cyclists. But it is dangerous, especially now with more and more people wearing headphones that you can’t hear the noise. You can’t hear the bell.”

"Bell"?

What bell?

The average fairy-cyclist wouldn't be seen dead with a bell fixed to
their trendy "Don't Look Where You're Going" drop-bars.

> Another Labour councillor, Mufadeen Bustin, said that while views in her Island Gardens ward were split on allowing fairy-cyclists in the tunnel, she believes that the “joy” of using the (***Foot***-)tunnels is “taken away when a fairy-cyclist whizzes past, almost knocking you over”.
>
> However, Green Party councillor and nutcase Nathalie Bienfait argued that Golds’ motion and the subsequent discussion gave “unhelpful airtime to the false narrative that cyclists are fundamentally irresponsible and lawless”.

She might as validly argue that the moon is made of cheese.

> She added: ““There is no safe north-south route for fairy-cyclists or pedestrians east of Tower Bridge.

In the case of fairy-cyclists, so what?

Fairy-cyclists can use the Rotherhithe Tunnel and they have access to
that fly-in-the-air lift thing - it's only about £7 a pop. What's wrong
with that? Or, they can even fairy-cycle down to Dartford or Thurrock
and have free use of the Dartford Crossing (in the back of a van).

Pedestrians have only the Greenwich ***Foot*** Tunnel.

> The Greenwich and Woolwich ***foot*** tunnels are used daily by hundreds of commuters who are, for the most part, respectful of the safety of pedestrians.

Yes, pedestrian commuters are respectful of the safety of pedestrians.

But as has already been illustrated above, fairy-cyclists are *not*.

> “The idea that fairy-cyclists are fundamentally unsafe for pedestrians is simply untrue and has to be challenged.

Rubbish.
>
> “Enforcement of byelaws prohibiting fairy-cycling in the tunnel is definitely important, but the protection of a quick and convenient route is something that I would like to support.”

She must mean for pedestrians, right?

> Despite Bienfait’s plea, Kabir Ahmed, a member of Lutfur Rahman’s Aspire party and Tower Hamlets’ cabinet member for regeneration, dismissed the idea that by criticising “dangerous” fairy-cyclists in the Greenwich foot tunnel, the council was attacking everyone who rides fairy-bikes.

But if the council did that, they'd be right far more often than they
were wrong.

After all, with few exceptions, fairy-cyclists are scofflaw chavs.
>
> “I think this is a serious issue,” he said. “I’m quite surprised how a motion regarding dangerous fairy-cyclists zooming across pedestrianised areas suddenly becomes an attack on all fairy-cyclists. That’s not the case.
>
> “If fairy-cycles need to be taken, they can walk with the fairy-cycles in their hand and carry it along just like all the other pedestrians.

You're attacking their very manhood now!
>
> “Now for me, it feels like the shoe is on the other foot because so many times we’ve had support regarding LTNs and blaming all drivers for dangerous driving and bad drivers. And now the shoe is on the other foot. We’re talking about dangerous fairy-cyclists running people over.”
>
> Following the discussion, Tower Hamlets’ councillors voted to pass Golds’ motion calling for health and safety checks in the tunnel.

Good. A council that takes pedestrian safety seriously.
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/councillor-calls-anti-bike-barriers-foot-tunnel-298871

How they must be gnashing their teeth at the road.cc bunker (as they
call their hole in a garage floor).

You also have to look at the context for this table. All it shows is likelihood of certain classes of road users being involved in incidents “together”. It doesn’t go into why. Some vital bits of context that this table omits include:

The definition of “involved”. As Rendel says, the definition of involved is so loose, that it pretty much removes all value from the data the table contains. A cyclist does not have to come into contact with a pedestrian to be recorded as “involved” in a pedestrian KSI. A driver could pass out, veer across a cycle lane and a pavement (hitting a cyclist and a pedestrian separately) and it would be recorded as a pedestrian KSI involving a cyclist.

Fault and circumstance. We know from DfT stats that a KSI involving a cyclist and a driver is 2-3 times more likely to be the driver’s fault for every age group except literal children. We also know from TfL stats that a KSI involving a cyclist and a pedestrian is 23% more likely to be the pedestrian’s fault. You can’t draw conclusions from the raw numbers if it transpires that the majority of the incidents aren’t actually the cyclist’s fault.

The amount of conflict between certain classes of road users. Cars, vans, and HGVs should only come into conflict with pedestrians at designated crossings, or when the pedestrian is crossing the road. On the other hand, cycle infra (by-and-large) either exists in or adjacent to (but often not separated from) pedestrian spaces. A car could spend 2-5% of its journey in “conflict” with pedestrians, but a cyclist could spend 50-70% of their journey in “conflict” with pedestrians (if they used as much provided infra as they could). Is it any surprise that there is a higher likelihood of an incident involving two classes of road users who are forced to share the same space than there is of it involving two classes of road users that should (in theory) very rarely come into conflict.

Other data. You have to look at this table along with other data available. Martin likes to post this (cropped) table by itself to support highly dubious claims like “cyclists are more of a danger to pedestrians than HGVs are”. However, there is specific DfT data that shows that (at least as a proportion of their modal share) this is not the case:

On 25/01/2023 09:44 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> You also have to look at the context for this table. All it shows is likelihood of certain classes of road users being involved in incidents “together”. It doesn’t go into why. Some vital bits of context that this table omits include:
>
> The definition of “involved”. As Rendel says, the definition of involved is so loose, that it pretty much removes all value from the data the table contains. A fairy-cyclist does not have to come into contact with a pedestrian to be recorded as “involved” in a pedestrian KSI.

Oddly enough, a driver does not need to come into contact with a
fairy-cyclist (or the fairy-cyclist's fairy-cycle) for the fairy-cyclist
to throw a hissy fit, clutch at his pearl necklace and childishly complain:

"Mummy! He was too near me! He was only a few feet away!".

“ We know from DfT stats that a KSI involving a cyclist and a driver is 2-3
times more likely to be the driver’s fault for every age group except
literal children.”

Link to the data, please.

“We also know from TfL stats that a KSI involving a cyclist and a
pedestrian is 23% more likely to be the pedestrian’s fault.”

Link to the data, please.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> You also have to look at the context for this table. All it shows is
> likelihood of certain classes of road users being involved in incidents
> “together”. It doesn’t go into why. Some vital bits of context that this
> table omits include:
>
> The definition of “involved”. As Rendel says, the definition of involved
> is so loose, that it pretty much removes all value from the data the
> table contains. A cyclist does not have to come into contact with a
> pedestrian to be recorded as “involved” in a pedestrian KSI. A driver
> could pass out, veer across a cycle lane and a pavement (hitting a
> cyclist and a pedestrian separately) and it would be recorded as a
> pedestrian KSI involving a cyclist.
>
> Fault and circumstance. We know from DfT stats that a KSI involving a
> cyclist and a driver is 2-3 times more likely to be the driver’s fault
> for every age group except literal children. We also know from TfL stats
> that a KSI involving a cyclist and a pedestrian is 23% more likely to be
> the pedestrian’s fault. You can’t draw conclusions from the raw numbers
> if it transpires that the majority of the incidents aren’t actually the cyclist’s fault.
>
> The amount of conflict between certain classes of road users. Cars, vans,
> and HGVs should only come into conflict with pedestrians at designated
> crossings, or when the pedestrian is crossing the road. On the other
> hand, cycle infra (by-and-large) either exists in or adjacent to (but
> often not separated from) pedestrian spaces. A car could spend 2-5% of
> its journey in “conflict” with pedestrians, but a cyclist could spend
> 50-70% of their journey in “conflict” with pedestrians (if they used as
> much provided infra as they could). Is it any surprise that there is a
> higher likelihood of an incident involving two classes of road users who
> are forced to share the same space than there is of it involving two
> classes of road users that should (in theory) very rarely come into conflict.
>
> Other data. You have to look at this table along with other data
> available. Martin likes to post this (cropped) table by itself to support
> highly dubious claims like “cyclists are more of a danger to pedestrians
> than HGVs are”. However, there is specific DfT data that shows that (at
> least as a proportion of their modal share) this is not the case:

Links to the data, please.

--
Spike

You also have to look at the context for this table. All it shows is likelihood of certain classes of road users being involved in incidents “together”. It doesn’t go into why. Some vital bits of context that this table omits include:

The definition of “involved”. As Rendel says, the definition of involved is so loose, that it pretty much removes all value from the data the table contains. A cyclist does not have to come into contact with a pedestrian to be recorded as “involved” in a pedestrian KSI. A driver could pass out, veer across a cycle lane and a pavement (hitting a cyclist and a pedestrian separately) and it would be recorded as a pedestrian KSI involving a cyclist.

Fault and circumstance. We know from DfT stats that a KSI involving a cyclist and a driver is 2-3 times more likely to be the driver’s fault for every age group except literal children. We also know from TfL stats that a KSI involving a cyclist and a pedestrian is 23% more likely to be the pedestrian’s fault. You can’t draw conclusions from the raw numbers if it transpires that the majority of the incidents aren’t actually the cyclist’s fault.

The amount of conflict between certain classes of road users. Cars, vans, and HGVs should only come into conflict with pedestrians at designated crossings, or when the pedestrian is crossing the road. On the other hand, cycle infra (by-and-large) either exists in or adjacent to (but often not separated from) pedestrian spaces. A car could spend 2-5% of its journey in “conflict” with pedestrians, but a cyclist could spend 50-70% of their journey in “conflict” with pedestrians (if they used as much provided infra as they could). Is it any surprise that there is a higher likelihood of an incident involving two classes of road users who are forced to share the same space than there is of it involving two classes of road users that should (in theory) very rarely come into conflict.

Other data. You have to look at this table along with other data available. Martin likes to post this (cropped) table by itself to support highly dubious claims like “cyclists are more of a danger to pedestrians than HGVs are”. However, there is specific DfT data that shows that (at least as a proportion of their modal share) this is not the case:

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/ped_ksi_2.JPG

Indeed. Martin once again demonstrating that cars present a disproportionate danger to pedestrians with considerably higher involvement in pedestrian KSIs than any other form of transport, while clearly displaying his own biases through his modification of statistics by editing.

"The idea that cyclists are fundamentally unsafe for pedestrians is simply untrue". Never a truer word spoken, eh Martin?

swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Indeed. Martin once again demonstrating that cars present a
> disproportionate danger to pedestrians with considerably higher
> involvement in pedestrian KSIs than any other form of transport, while
> clearly displaying his own biases through his modification of statistics by editing.

> "The idea that cyclists are fundamentally unsafe for pedestrians is
> simply untrue". Never a truer word spoken, eh Martin?
The figures are so out of date as to be useless.

For example, the latest data available tells us that the proportion of
cycle journeys fell from 3% to 2%, but this report only claims 1%. So
something is truly awry here.

--
Spike

A report based on data from yesteryear….

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote

> You also have to look at the context for this table. All it shows is
> likelihood of certain classes of road users being involved in incidents
> “together”. It doesn’t go into why. Some vital bits of context that this
> table omits include:

> The definition of “involved”. As Rendel says, the definition of involved
> is so loose, that it pretty much removes all value from the data the
> table contains. A cyclist does not have to come into contact with a
> pedestrian to be recorded as “involved” in a pedestrian KSI. A driver
> could pass out, veer across a cycle lane and a pavement (hitting a
> cyclist and a pedestrian separately) and it would be recorded as a
> pedestrian KSI involving a cyclist.

This has always been the case, for example a driver swerves to avoid a
drunk stumbling about on the pavement, a bus then reacts to this event,
ploughing into a shop front, causing a pavement cyclist to apply his brakes
and is injured when he somersaults over the handlebars; that is reported as
‘an alcohol-related injury’. There is nothing new here, so why has it now
surfaced as a claimed issue?

> Fault and circumstance. We know from DfT stats that a KSI involving a
> cyclist and a driver is 2-3 times more likely to be the driver’s fault
> for every age group except literal children. We also know from TfL stats
> that a KSI involving a cyclist and a pedestrian is 23% more likely to be
> the pedestrian’s fault. You can’t draw conclusions from the raw numbers
> if it transpires that the majority of the incidents aren’t actually the cyclist’s fault.

It would help clarity is the source of these figures had been linked, even
if the link was external.

> The amount of conflict between certain classes of road users. Cars, vans,
> and HGVs should only come into conflict with pedestrians at designated
> crossings, or when the pedestrian is crossing the road. On the other
> hand, cycle infra (by-and-large) either exists in or adjacent to (but
> often not separated from) pedestrian spaces. A car could spend 2-5% of
> its journey in “conflict” with pedestrians, but a cyclist could spend
> 50-70% of their journey in “conflict” with pedestrians (if they used as
> much provided infra as they could). Is it any surprise that there is a
> higher likelihood of an incident involving two classes of road users who
> are forced to share the same space than there is of it involving two
> classes of road users that should (in theory) very rarely come into conflict.

That the whole problem, isn’t it?

When cyclists complained of conflict with motor traffic, the problem was
shifted at least in part onto pavements, and it was inevitable that
pedestrians would suffer the consequences.

Using the argument that HGVs cause a greater proportion of pedestrian
casualties than pavement cyclists is facile in the extreme, and it is
simply disgraceful that such an argument should ever have been advanced.

> Other data. You have to look at this table along with other data
> available. Martin likes to post this (cropped) table by itself to support
> highly dubious claims like “cyclists are more of a danger to pedestrians
> than HGVs are”. However, there is specific DfT data that shows that (at
> least as a proportion of their modal share) this is not the case:

Why is this article based on figures that cover only a limited time span
since ten years ago?

One suspects a large element of cherry-picking has gone on here.

The whole report needs to be reworked with up-to-date figures rather than
those from 14 years ago.

> https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/ped_ksi_2.JPG

Oh! road.cc again….that explains a lot.

--
Spike

Says a lot about how our society views active travel when the conversation is entirely about pedestrians and cyclists fighting over the scraps rather than about expanding the infrastructure to meet demand like it would be with literally any other form of transport.

Next time someone brings up the eternal Heathrow expansion I'll be sure to switch the conversation to the Tower Hamlets tunnel expansion.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Says a lot about how our society views active travel when the
> conversation is entirely about pedestrians and cyclists fighting over the
> scraps rather than about expanding the infrastructure to meet demand like
> it would be with literally any other form of transport.
>
> Next time someone brings up the eternal Heathrow expansion I'll be sure
> to switch the conversation to the Tower Hamlets tunnel expansion.

Interesting admission there that cyclists fight with pedestrians. Obviously
the cyclists have never read the Highway Code that puts pedestrians at the
very top of the hierarchy.

--
Spike

Having cycled through the foot tunnel for several years, my observation is that most people who cycle through are careful when there are lots of pedestrians around. There are always the minority of cyclists who behave inappropriately but I have never seen a collision of any sort.

And then there are the pedestrians who ignore the line in the middle of the tunnel ...

And those who litter ...

I notice LBTH councillors don't seem to mind their law breaking

In general, their proposals will most likely penalise those who behave appropriately and probably increase danger as cyclists attempt to navigate barriers or whatever clever infrastructure they erect to deter the undeterable

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having cycled through the foot tunnel for several years, my observation
> is that most people who cycle through are careful when there are lots of
> pedestrians around. There are always the minority of cyclists who behave
> inappropriately but I have never seen a collision of any sort.

All very well, but that’s just one person’s probably biased view. It
clearly doesn’t align with the view of councillors (except the green ones).

> And then there are the pedestrians who ignore the line in the middle of the tunnel ...

Read the Highway Code!

> And those who litter ...

Including cyclists.

> I notice LBTH councillors don't seem to mind their law breaking

They are trying to deal with an issue before someone gets killed. It’s more
important than the odd discarded crisp packet.

> In general, their proposals will most likely penalise those who behave
> appropriately and probably increase danger as cyclists attempt to
> navigate barriers or whatever clever infrastructure they erect to deter the undeterable

Ask yourself why you are ***cycling*** through a ***foot*** tunnel. Then
stop complaining.

--
Spike

On 26/01/2023 11:20 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Says a lot about how our society views active travel when the conversation is entirely about pedestrians and fairy-cyclists fighting over the scraps rather than about expanding the infrastructure to meet demand like it would be with literally any other form of transport.
>
> Next time someone brings up the eternal Heathrow expansion I'll be sure to switch the conversation to the Tower Hamlets tunnel expansion.

Tower Hamlets and Greenwich Councils should add a fairy-cycle path to
the foot tunnel, though of course, it would need to be completely
outside the tunnel's confines.

As well as keeping pedestrians safe in the *Foot* Tunnel, it would have
the added benefit of giving fairy-cyclists a bath on their way to work.
And one on the way home.

On 26/01/2023 01:54 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Having cycled through the foot tunnel for several years, my observation is that most people who fairy-cycle through are careful when there are lots of pedestrians around.

Hahahahaha!

> There are always the minority of cyclists who behave inappropriately but I have never seen a collision of any sort.

> And then there are the pedestrians who ignore the line in the middle of the tunnel ...

What "line"?

There is no fairy-cycling lane in the *Foot* Tunnel, if that's what
you're slyly trying to suggest.

Why should pedestrians in a *Foot* Tunnel have to stay one side of an
imaginary line?
>
> And those who litter ...
> I notice LBTH councillors don't seem to mind their law breaking

Get the fairy-cyclists out of the area completely. Send them across on
the chair-lift thing at Greenwich - it's only £19 each way and
fairy-cyclists are all Considerably Richer Than Yow anyway.

Watch the amount of littering decline rapidly (especially on village
greens and other grassed areas).

> In general, their proposals will most likely penalise those who behave appropriately

In that case, fairy-cyclists have nowt to fear. They rarely behave
appropriately, as you are well aware.

> and probably increase danger as cyclists attempt to navigate barriers or whatever clever infrastructure they erect to deter the undeterable

Thank you for confirming that fairy-cyclists have no respect for any
rules or law, and still less for pedestrians in the *Foot* Tunnel.

As I understand it, FOGWOFT ( Friends of Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels ) spent years trying to arrange with Greenwich, Tower Hamets and Newham to arrange for considerate cycling to be allowed in the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels but were unable to persuade all three councils to amend the necessary by-laws. At one stage there was a trial arrangement with green and red lights indicating when cycling was permitted and when not. In my view this could have worked well with considerate cycling permitted in quiet periods but not at busy times. It's very sad to see the negative attitude of Tower Hamlets.

On 26/01/2023 06:24 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> As I understand it, FOGWOFT ( Friends of Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels ) spent years trying to arrange with Greenwich, Tower Hamets and Newham to arrange for considerate fairy-cycling to be allowed in the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels but were unable to persuade all three councils to amend the necessary by-laws. At one stage there was a trial arrangement with green and red lights indicating when fairy-cycling was permitted and when not. In my view this could have worked well with considerate fairy-cycling permitted in quiet periods but not at busy times. It's very sad to see the negative attitude of Tower Hamlets.

"considerate fairy-cycling"?

What is that?

On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 19:57:56 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 26/01/2023 06:24 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, FOGWOFT ( Friends of Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels ) spent years trying to arrange with Greenwich, Tower Hamets and Newham to arrange for considerate fairy-cycling to be allowed in the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels but were unable to persuade all three councils to amend the necessary by-laws. At one stage there was a trial arrangement with green and red lights indicating when fairy-cycling was permitted and when not. In my view this could have worked well with considerate fairy-cycling permitted in quiet periods but not at busy times. It's very sad to see the negative attitude of Tower Hamlets.
>
> "considerate fairy-cycling"?
>
> What is that?

Refraining from swearing when they shout at people who “get in their way”?

On 26/01/2023 11:55 pm, Peter Granger wrote:

> On Thursday, 26 January 2023 at 19:57:56 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 26/01/2023 06:24 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> As I understand it, FOGWOFT ( Friends of Greenwich and Woolwich Foot Tunnels ) spent years trying to arrange with Greenwich, Tower Hamets and Newham to arrange for considerate fairy-cycling to be allowed in the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels but were unable to persuade all three councils to amend the necessary by-laws. At one stage there was a trial arrangement with green and red lights indicating when fairy-cycling was permitted and when not. In my view this could have worked well with considerate fairy-cycling permitted in quiet periods but not at busy times. It's very sad to see the negative attitude of Tower Hamlets.
>
>> "considerate fairy-cycling"?
>> What is that?
>
> Refraining from swearing when they shout at people who “get in their way”?

That would be as far as it went.

It will be interesting to see if the Councillor gets his barriers past the 2010 Equality Act.

I guess they could use a Mansfield-style PSPO.

Or a return to the old system of refusing bikes access to the lifts if they have been "whizzing" of "zooming" inconsiderately.

On 27/01/2023 05:58 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> It will be interesting to see if the Councillor gets his barriers past the 2010 Equality Act.
>
> I guess they could use a Mansfield-style PSPO.
>
> Or a return to the old system of refusing fairy-bikes access to the lifts if they have been "whizzing" of "zooming" inconsiderately.

Why not just refuse access to the lifts to fairy-cycles and fairy-cyclists?

If they could get on with building the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf bridge (for pedestrians and cyclists) there won't be so much need for cyclists to use the foot tunnel. But TfL don't have the money at the moment and Canary Wharf group seem to be against the idea for some reason.

On 27/01/2023 11:23 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> If they could get on with building the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf bridge (for pedestrians and fairy-cyclists) there won't be so much need for fairy-cyclists to use the foot tunnel. But TfL don't have the money at the moment and Canary Wharf group seem to be against the idea for some reason.

What would be the point in another *Foot* bridge on which fairy-cyclists
would continue to harass and endanger pedestrians?

On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 11:23:38 AM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> If they could get on with building the Rotherhithe to Canary Wharf bridge (for pedestrians and cyclists) there won't be so much need for cyclists to use the foot tunnel. But TfL don't have the money at the moment and Canary Wharf group seem to be against the idea for some reason.

They can find the money when it is the vast Brexit losses.